Bibliographic record
Abstract
Torrey's 'The Foot-Path Way? --Mr.Torrey's writings always have a charm in their happily worded sentences that never duI1 the delicate edge of his humor, and ttmt bring us the fragrance of the northern woods without loss of any of its freshness, but each time he gathers together a new volume we realize more and more the weightier reasons fox' his preaminence in the group of writers with whom one naturally associates him.He is not merely a phiIosopher and a sayer of happy things.He observes nature keenly as well as sympathetically, and'with a spirit of scientific caution that stamps his work with a value which the writings of many a more prominent ornithologist will never possess.About two thirds of the chapters in the present collection are devoted to birds, and in them he tells much that is interesting besides some facts of real importance--as fro' instance the record of the Pine Grosbeak as a summer bird on Mt.Lafayette, New Hampshire.Two chapters are given to his experience of the breeding habits of Trockt'lus colubris; there is another upon 'Robin Roosts'; and such titles as 'June in Franconia,' 'The Passing of the Birds,' 'A Great Blue Heron,' and 'December Out-ofdoors,' give a fair idea of the other ornithological contents of the volume.Most of the chapters have already appeared in the pages of the 'Atlantic Monthly,' but their reappearance in the present form deserves a cordial welcome.-C.F. B. Ornithological Report of the Canadian Institute?--Thispublication is a record of the members' observations reported at the meetings from April xS, x89o, to June 9, x89x' It contains among other things a detailed report, of fourteen pages, from a number of observers, on the occurrence of the Evening Grosbeak in Ontario during the winter of x889•9o, and an annotated list, by W. L. Kells, of nearly a hundred and fifty species occuring at Listowel, Ontario.In addition to these there are a multitude of brief notes, some of the highest interest, others less important, relating many of them to habits, but the majority to dates of migration, etc., of various species, rare and common.With hardly an exception the localities referred to are all within the Province of Ontario.It is impossible here to quote any, even the most interesting, of the records, in spite of the importance of many 6f them, especially of such as bear upon the faunal peculiarities of the region.The number of persons who have contributed to the report is large, and their work seenas, on the whole, to show unusual accuracy as well as t The Foot-Path Way I by I Bradford Torrey I [five lines=quotation] I [vignette] l Boston and New York I Houghton• Mifflin and Company I The Riverside Press, Cambridge [ I892-I6ø• pp.[iv,] 245.'• Proceedings ] of the [ Ornithological Sub-section I of the Biological Section of the [ Canadian Institute I for I x89ø-9 x ] edited by the editing committee.I (Extracted from the Proceedings of the Canadian Institute by permission I of the Council.)I --I Price--25 cents.[ --I Toronto: ] The Copp• Clark Company• Limited, [ 9 Front Street West.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".